alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6205

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

SEAN MCKARN, a/k/a Mack,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:99-cr-00011-FPS-JES-6)

Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 6, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sean McKarn, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hugh McWilliams, Jr., 

John Castle Parr, Assistant United States Attorneys, Wheeling, 

West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sean McKarn appeals the district court’s order denying 

his motion seeking a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582 (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error, given that McKarn is ineligible for the 

reduction that he seeks. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of 

the district court. United States v. McKarn, No. 5:99-cr-00011-

FPS-JES-6 (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 17, 2012). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION OF BILL MCDERMOTT, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF SAP SE

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of SAP SE (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20,
2015 (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |        |  |                         |  | 
|------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | ----------------------- |  | 
|Date March 19, 2015 |  |  |  |        |  | /s/ Bill McDermott      |  | 
|                    |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Bill McDermott          |  | 
|                    |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer |  | 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being
filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *986Joseph R. Pawlowski, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We have reviewed all of defendant’s contentions on appeal and we find them to be without merit. We conclude that the court made a searching inquiry before permitting defendant to act as his own attorney and it properly determined that defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel *(see, People v Vivenzio,*62 NY2d 775). The court’s instructions to the jury concerning intent, felony murder, and alibi were correct and the court did not unfairly marshal the evidence. The court properly refused to charge the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the second degree because there was no view of the evidence from which the jury could have concluded that the shooting was reckless rather than intentional. The discarding of the handwritten notes by the police officer when he prepared his typed report did not deprive defendant of a fair trial *(see, People v Sirianni,*97 AD2d 938), nor did any of the claimed improper tactics of the District Attorney. The statement of defendant requesting a prison inmate to kill an essential witness was properly admitted as evidence of consciousness of guilt *(see,*Richardson, Evidence § 167, at 134 [Prince 10th ed]; *People v Shilitano,*218 NY 161). Also, in ruling on the *Sandoval*motion, the court properly refused to suppress cross-examination concerning defendant’s prior conviction for armed robbery since defendant’s specialization in one type of illegal activity should not shield him from impeachment by a prior conviction *(see, People v Pavao,*59 NY2d 282).

Moreover, many of the issues raised by defendant on this appeal were not preserved for review as a matter of law and, because of the ample and persuasive evidence of guilt, we decline to exercise our jurisdiction to reverse in the interest of justice.

Finally, defendant’s contention that the court, on the first trial, should have granted defendant’s motion for a trial order of dismissal *(see, People v Tingue,*91 AD2d 166), is without merit. Accepting defendant’s statement that the testimony at the first trial was the same as at the second trial, except for the added testimony at the second trial of defendant’s confession to his cellmate, we find more than sufficient testimony at the first trial to prove defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (Appeal from judgment of Genesee County Court, Morton, J. — murder, second degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Den-man, Boomer, Green and O’Donnell, JJ.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended
June 30, 2003, (the Report) of The Hillman Companies, Inc. (the
Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof; I, Max W. Hillman, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant,
certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Registrant. /s/ Max W. HillmanName: Max W. HillmanDate: March 26, 2004
Letter Agreement


 Exhibit 10.1 
 Yukoh Yoshida 
 President 
 Senju Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. 
 5-8, Hiranomachi 2-chome 
 Chuo-ku, Osaka, 541-0046 
 Japan 
 Dear Mr. Yoshida: 
 In
connection with our recent letter regarding changing the terms and conditions of the Bromfenac License Agreement dated March 7, 2002, and amended August 13, 2002 and May 31, 2006, this letter is to further document our mutual
agreement to the following additional change. 
 Senju and ISTA agree that the definition of Territory in the License Agreement
is amended to read: 
 1.02 “Territory” shall mean North America, including the possessions of the United
States.” 
 If you agree to the above, please sign and date this and the duplicate copy of this letter in the space
provided below and return one signed copy to us. 
 Sincerely yours, 
 /s/ Vicente Anido, Jr. 
 Vicente Anido, Jr. 
 President and CEO 
 ISTA Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

 Date: December 11, 2009 
 Agreed to and accepted 
 /s/ Yukoh Yoshida 
 Yukoh Yoshida 
 President 
 Senju Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
# C_2019213EN.01005801.xml

| 24.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/58

---

Action brought on 12 April 2019 — Bilde v Parliament

(Case T-248/19)

(2019/C 213/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Dominique Bilde (Lagarde, France) (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Parliament P8_TA-PROV(2019)0137, of 12 March 2019, on the request for the waiver of the immunity of the applicant 2018/2267(IMM), and which actually waived the applicant’s immunity; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Parliament P8_TA-PROV(2019)0137, of 12 March 2019, on the request for the waiver of the immunity of the applicant 2018/2267(IMM), and which actually waived the applicant’s immunity;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9 of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 266), of Article 5(1) and (5) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament (OJ 2005 L 44, p. 1) and of the Communications to Members Nos 11/2003 and 22/2016. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9 of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 266), of Article 5(1) and (5) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament (OJ 2005 L 44, p. 1) and of the Communications to Members Nos 11/2003 and 22/2016.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an abuse of process, more specifically, infringement of Article 43 of the Communication to Members No 11/2016, inasmuch as the underlying purpose of the charges is to damage the applicant’s political activity, which constitutes a case of fumus persecutionis against him. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an abuse of process, more specifically, infringement of Article 43 of the Communication to Members No 11/2016, inasmuch as the underlying purpose of the charges is to damage the applicant’s political activity, which constitutes a case of fumus persecutionis against him.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principles of EU law ‘ne bis in idem’ and ‘electa una via’, an abuse of process and a misuse of powers. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principles of EU law ‘ne bis in idem’ and ‘electa una via’, an abuse of process and a misuse of powers.

---
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 21 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative 

to equal rights for men and women. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 22, 2011 

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, and Mr. LEVIN) introduced 

the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States relative to equal rights for men and women. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States: 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 21 IS 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. Equality of rights under the law shall 

3 not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any 

4 State on account of sex. 

5 ‘‘SECTION 2. The Congress shall have the power to 

6 enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this 

7 article. 

8 ‘‘SECTION 3. This article shall take effect 2 years 

9 after the date of ratification.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
# C_2020010EN.01002601.xml

| 13.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/26

---

Appeal brought on 14 November 2019 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 4 September 2019 in Case T-308/18 Hamas v Council

(Case C-833/19 P)

(2020/C 10/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by B. Driessen and S. Van Overmeire, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Hamas

Form of order sought

The Council submits that the Court of Justice should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-308/19; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-308/19;

| — | give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of this appeal; and |
| --- | --- |

—

give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of this appeal; and

| — | order the applicant in Case T-308/18 to pay the costs incurred by the Council in the proceedings at first instance and in the context of the present appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the applicant in Case T-308/18 to pay the costs incurred by the Council in the proceedings at first instance and in the context of the present appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In the first place, the Council takes the view that the General Court erred in law in its assessment of the eighth plea for annulment, alleging ‘failure to authenticate the statement of reasons’, by finding that the statement of reasons relating to the contested measures ought to have been signed.

In the second place, the Council submits that the General Court erred in not finding that the decisions of the American authorities constituted a sufficient basis for including Hamas in the list annexed to the contested measures.

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2
                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Renaissance Learning, Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certifies that:

         (1)      the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
                  ended June 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the
                  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
                  Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.


Dated:  August 13, 2002


                                  /s/ Steven A. Schmidt
                                  --------------------------------------------
                                  Name: Steven A. Schmidt
                                  Title: Chief Financial Officer,  Secretary and
                                  Vice President
# C_2019230EN.01001902.xml

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 29 March 2019 — Constantin Film Verleih GmbH v YouTube LLC, Google Inc.

(Case C-264/19)

(2019/C 230/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Constantin Film Verleih GmbH

Defendants: YouTube LLC, Google Inc.

Questions referred

| 1. | Do the addresses of the producers, manufacturers, distributors, suppliers and other previous holders of the goods or services, as well as the intended wholesalers and retailers, mentioned in Article 8(2)(a) of Directive 2004/48/EC (1) and covered, as appropriate, by the information referred to in Article 8(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC, also include






  (a) | the email addresses of service users and/or |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Do the addresses of the producers, manufacturers, distributors, suppliers and other previous holders of the goods or services, as well as the intended wholesalers and retailers, mentioned in Article 8(2)(a) of Directive 2004/48/EC (1) and covered, as appropriate, by the information referred to in Article 8(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC, also include

(a)

the email addresses of service users and/or

| (b) | the telephone numbers of service users and/or |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the telephone numbers of service users and/or

| (c) | the IP addresses used by service users to upload infringing files, together with the precise point in time at which such uploading took place? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the IP addresses used by service users to upload infringing files, together with the precise point in time at which such uploading took place?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1(c) is in the affirmative:
  Does the information to be provided under Article 8(2)(a) of Directive 2004/48/EC also cover the IP address that a user, who has previously uploaded infringing files, last used to access his or her Google/YouTube user account, together with the precise point in time at which access took place, irrespective of whether any infringement was committed when that account was last accessed? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1(c) is in the affirmative:

Does the information to be provided under Article 8(2)(a) of Directive 2004/48/EC also cover the IP address that a user, who has previously uploaded infringing files, last used to access his or her Google/YouTube user account, together with the precise point in time at which access took place, irrespective of whether any infringement was committed when that account was last accessed?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45).

---
ALLIED CAPITAL 					1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
								Washington, DC 20006-3434

								

202 331 1112	

								202-659-2053 Fax

 

 

March 19, 2004

 

Wachovia Securities				Moody's Investors Service, Inc.

Structured Products Services			99 Church Street, 8th Floor

8739 Research Drive URP4			New York, NY 10007

Charlotte, NC 28288-1075			Attn: Penny Leech-Freed

Attn: Carolyn Johnson

LaSalle Bank National Association		Standard & Poor's Rating Services

135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1625		55 Water Street, 41st Floor

Chicago, IL 60603				New York, NY 10041-0003

Attn:  Cindy Reis				Attn:   Eric Thompson

Wells Fargo Bank, NA

Corporate Trust Services

CMBS Department

9062 Old Annapolis Road

Columbia, MD 21045

 

	RE:  FUCMSI 2002-C1, Officer's Certificate

 

Dear Representatives:

In accordance with the requirements detailed in 3.13 and 11.11(d)(i) of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-mentioned CMBS pool, Allied Capital Corporation ("ACC"), in its capacity as Special Servicer, is providing this Officer's Certificate with respect to the following:
Under my supervision, ACC has reviewed its activities for 2003 and its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement;
To the best of my knowledge, based on this review, ACC has in all material respects fulfilled all of its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement throughout 2003; and
ACC has received no notice regarding the qualification or status of REMIC I or REMIC II as a REMIC under the REMIC Provisions or the Grantor Trust as a "Grantor Trust" for income tax purposed under the Grantor Trust Provisions from the IRS or any other governmental agency or body.

 

 

 

 

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. I can be reached directly (or via facsimile) 202-331-2438 or via email at dmorakis@allied capital.com.

Sincerely,

Allied Capital Corporation, solely in its capacity as

Special Servicer for the Trust

 
***Demetrios Morakis

Demetrios Morakis

Vice President, Special Servicing

Cc:  Norma Kuntz, Vice President, Accounting and Financial Mgmt, Allied Capital Corporation

        Jordan Paul, Principal, Special Servicing, Allied Capital Corporation

        Matthew Walsh, Principal, Special Servicing, Allied Capital Corporation

       Greg Askey, Principal

       Matthews, Carter and Boyce, P.C.

       11320 Random Hills Road, Suite 600

       Fairfax, VA 22030-7427

 

 

 

 ***
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 997 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 997

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to extend a water contract 
   between the United States and the East Bench Irrigation District.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``East Bench Irrigation District Water 
Contract Extension Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO EXTEND WATER CONTRACT.

    The Secretary of the Interior may extend the contract for water 
services between the United States and the East Bench Irrigation 
District, numbered 14-06-600-3593, until the earlier of--
            (1) the date that is 4 years after the date on which the 
        contract would have expired if this Act had not been enacted; 
        or
            (2) the date on which a new long-term contract is executed 
        by the parties to the contract.

            Passed the Senate November 2, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
112th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 997

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to extend a water contract 
   between the United States and the East Bench Irrigation District.
```
Exhibit 23



                              ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT



The Board of Directors
Optical Cable Corporation


         We consent to incorporation by reference in Registration  Statement No.
33-09433 on Form S-8 of Optical Cable  Corporation  of our report dated December
12, 1997,  relating to the balance  sheets of Optical  Cable  Corporation  as of
October 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related  statements of income,  stockholders'
equity,  and cash  flows for each of the years in the  three-year  period  ended
October 31, 1997, which report is included in the October 31, 1997 Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Optical Cable Corporation.




                                                   KPMG Peat Marwick LLP





Roanoke, Virginia
January 29, 1998
Amendment to Severance Agreement



 Exhibit 10.6 
 AMENDMENT TO SEVERANCE AGREEMENT 
 This
Amendment (“Amendment”) to the Severance Agreement dated May 24, 2007 (“Agreement”) between R. Bruce Stewart (“Executive”) and Arrowhead Research Corporation (“Company”), a Delaware corporation located at
201 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 703, Pasadena, CA 91101, is made and entered into as May 12, 2009 (“Effective Date”). 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive seek to amend the Agreement; 
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual
covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, such parties intending to be legally bound, agree as follows: 
 Section 3 of the Agreement shall be discharged and rendered moot in its entirety; and shall be replaced with the following
Section 3: 
 3. Retirement or Termination of Employment  
 The following shall govern Executive’s retirement or termination (except in the case of Section 5 below): Should Executive
voluntarily retire or voluntarily terminate from Arrowhead Research Corporation or its successor for any reason or should Executive be terminated from Arrowhead Research Corporation or its successor for any reason, Executive will be paid a single
lump sum amount equivalent to one (1) month of his highest monthly salary while at Arrowhead Research Corporation. 
 IN WITNESSETH
WHEREOF, each of the parties has duly executed the Amendment effective as of the Effective Date. 
  

					
	 Dated: May 12, 2009
	 		 	ARROWHEAD RESEARCH CORPORATION
			
		 		 	 /s/ Paul C. McDonnel

		 		 	Paul C. McDonnel
		 		 	Chief Financial Officer
			
	 Dated: May 12, 2009
	 		 	EXECUTIVE
			
		 		 	 /s/ R. Bruce Stewart

		 		 	R. Bruce Stewart
		 		 	Executive Chairman